Why do we object to mechanics?

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

MY STUPID RULE: If i would feel stupid when explaining a rule to my players' date=' i don't use that rule.[/quote']

Actually, that's a pretty good rule.

[Just Joe]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

It would take me an hour to list all the things I agree with that have been said so far.

 

A couple of additional thoughts:

 

I don't want a mechanic that forces to much or too little randomness into the game, without GM's and players being allowed to adjust it to their needs. Arguably, this is part of the problem with the STUN lotto. Less controversially, imagine that the standard effect rule dictated the effect of ALL powers (e.g., every 10d6 eb did 30 stun and 10 bod every time). Or imagine that you always rolled 1d6 and multiplied by the number of dice. Ick.

 

I want any mechanic that is meant to be simulating something to do a good job of simulating it, while allowing differentiation between different characters and actions. Thus I'm not fond of D&D AC because it does a poor job of distinguishing between defenses that help against AOE attacks and those that do not. It does not allow a good distinction between a sword that magically seeks out an opponents heart (lightning fast, but stopped by armor as easily as a normal sword) and one that is not particularly accurate but cuts through any armor with ease. I have similar objections to very broad interpretations of DCV and of defensive actions (e.g., game mechanic block used as narrative description dodge or brick laughing off attack).

[tesuji]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

In defense of Ac (a little devil's advocacy here...) applicable to DND and also nWOD.

 

BAsically AC makes the roll not a to-hit roll but a "to hurt roll" where if you succeed you damage the enemy (barring other mechanics playing in.)

 

Basically, when you are missed, the Gm can assign it to either "the attack missed" or "the attack failed to get thru armor" or any number of "narrative descriptions" that result in "no net effect." From an effects-based reasoning, its "the attemot to harm you failed" that matters, the specifics of "how it failed"is just flavor, and flavor is not the purview of mechanics as much as it is the purview of GM choice.

 

Of course there are some attacks which should ignore armor (covered rules -wise by touch attacks) and situations where dodging isn't an option (covered by the various "lose dex bonus" rules) but for most common cases there is no downside to allowing the determination of "did this failed attack miss or was it stopped by armor" to be a "GM calls based on SFX, flavor, common sense and dramatic sense."

 

For example, its not uncommon in HERO to purchase armor or PD/ED as "super-dodge" or "luck" and so forth, whioch sounda a lot like allowing the muddling of the mechnics between "was it a hit that failed to penetrate or was it a miss" and thats apparently just fine, but doing so and calling it AC is not?

 

In short, why is it better to have the dice choose between "you were just missed" and "you were hit but no damage got thru" when an attack fails as opposed to leaving that flavor/sfx/fluff text choice to the Gm or player to select whichever is most appropriate? i can buy having the dice determine "was the attack successful" just fine, but why does the "how and why" of the failure need mechanics and dice?

 

If you are opposed to AC, are you also one to disallow HERO players to buy PD/ED and their ilk as combat luck or use dodge SFX to explain them?

[Just Joe]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

In defense of Ac . . .

 

Of course there are some attacks which should ignore armor (covered rules -wise by touch attacks) and situations where dodging isn't an option (covered by the various "lose dex bonus" rules) . . .

Good points, but the mechanic still seems to me to be inelegant and intuitively dissatisfying. Not having taken a serious look at D&D in close to two decades, my comments on this matter are based mainly on guesswork (and maybe prejudice), but I doubt they cover the full range of relevant cases as well as DCV + defences do.

 

. . . but for most common cases there is no downside to allowing the determination of "did this failed attack miss or was it stopped by armor" to be a "GM calls based on SFX' date=' flavor, common sense and dramatic sense."[/quote'] Maybe . . .

 

For example, its not uncommon in HERO to purchase armor or PD/ED as "super-dodge" or "luck" and so forth, whioch sounda a lot like allowing the muddling of the mechnics between "was it a hit that failed to penetrate or was it a miss" and thats apparently just fine, but doing so and calling it AC is not?."

 

. . .

 

If you are opposed to AC, are you also one to disallow HERO players to buy PD/ED and their ilk as combat luck or use dodge SFX to explain them?

Thanks for pointing out this example. I can't stand combat luck. The only thing I think it can represent reasonable well is something like an attack "just happening" to strike a badge, thick wallet, large coin, or whathaveyou, which is corny enough if it happens once, boring and ridiculous if it happens repeatedly. Why in the world should a 6 body, 30 stun attack do zero body and 20ish stun to a character with 6 PD combat luck? (I've heard semi-plausible answers before, but ultimately it strikes me as a poor mechanic).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Good points' date=' but the mechanic still seems to me to be inelegant and intuitively dissatisfying. Not having taken a serious look at D&D in close to two decades, my comments on this matter are based mainly on guesswork (and maybe prejudice), but I doubt they cover the full range of relevant cases as well as DCV + defences do.[/quote']

 

On the other hand, the more common complaints sometimes levied against Hero include:

 

- too complex: d20 uses one roll to determine whether damage was inflicted and a second to determine the magnitude of that damage. DONE. Hero requires a roll to hit, a damage roll, a determination of which, if any, defense applies and the subtraction of that defense from one, sometimes two, figures computed from the damage roll to determine damagie inflicted.

 

- too math-oriented (we have to SUBTRACT in combat:angst: Sometimes we even have to DIVIDE! It's all too much math [you may note I'm not all that sympathetic to this complaint, but nevertheless it is an issue commonly raised. Perception can dictate reality.]

 

- too slow: see "too complex"

 

With this in mind, perhaps the d20 system is "more elegant" in that it enables matters to be resolved quicker. The cost of additional options and finer granularity is increased complexity. There are certainly enough threads on the Boards lloking for ways to streamline that complexity that I believe there is a portion of the market who values that simplicity more than they value the enhanced flexibility offered by Hero.

 

Thanks for pointing out this example. I can't stand combat luck. The only thing I think it can represent reasonable well is something like an attack "just happening" to strike a badge' date=' thick wallet, large coin, or whathaveyou, which is corny enough if it happens once, boring and ridiculous if it happens repeatedly. Why in the world should a 6 body, 30 stun attack do zero body and 20ish stun to a character with 6 PD combat luck? (I've heard semi-plausible answers before, but ultimately it strikes me as a poor mechanic).[/quote']

 

"Luckily, Johnny was, at that very moment, distracted by the movement he detected out of the corner of his eye, and turned his head as the shot was fired, so the bullet only grazed his temple, knocking him out rather than killing him outright."

 

"Reacting quickly, Chun-Ki-Li rolled away from the shot. While he was quick enough to avoid having his brain matter redecorate the wall behind him, the bullet creasing his skull still knocked him for a loop."

 

However, I also find Combat Luck muddies the mechanics somewhat, using evasion (which we normally think means "not getting hit") into resistance (not getting hurt). D20 3e'd Damage Reduction, which reduces damage taken from a hit, similarly crosses up the mechanics. Both are, however, useful additions to their respective games, in my opinion.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Thanks for pointing out this example. I can't stand combat luck. The only thing I think it can represent reasonable well is something like an attack "just happening" to strike a badge, thick wallet, large coin, or whathaveyou, which is corny enough if it happens once, boring and ridiculous if it happens repeatedly. Why in the world should a 6 body, 30 stun attack do zero body and 20ish stun to a character with 6 PD combat luck? (I've heard semi-plausible answers before, but ultimately it strikes me as a poor mechanic).

 

 

Me too! Me too!

 

While I've allowed Combat Luck... it doesn't mean I'm happy with it. I dislike the poor way it models things. In fact, I think it is a mechanic that demonstrates why a system shouldn't try to be "all things" and to model every possible effect. The more you twist the basic functionality in the dream world of SFX-less vanilla mechanics, you get twingy game play moments like "Ok... I didn't take any body fromt he bullet due to combat luck, which SFX says the bullet missed... but I still took stun from the bullet. How does that work?"

 

That kind of "ugh" moment in game play defines when I object to a mechanic. Now... no system will be perfect and there will always be these moments... but there is a difference between Combat Luck, which is a small rule, not used that often and a core mechanic that practically defines the game like AC in D&D. I can ignore Combat Luck in Hero and play the game just fine. Remove AC from D&D and the whole game collapses.

 

Does a mechanic create uncomfortable "ugh" moments in game play? Does it do it all the time or just in certain circumstances? Is it a pervasive mechanic in the system/game, or is it a minor irritant?

 

All these questions go into what I consider (and more) in objecting to a mechanic to the point of removing it.

 

Speed Chart and Stun Lotto long ago crossed the objectionable line and I removed them. Combat Luck is on the line, but not over it, yet, mostly because in all but one situation I've said, "One level of CL... that is it. Can't have more."

[zornwil]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

In defense of Ac (a little devil's advocacy here...) applicable to DND and also nWOD.

 

BAsically AC makes the roll not a to-hit roll but a "to hurt roll" where if you succeed you damage the enemy (barring other mechanics playing in.)

 

Basically, when you are missed, the Gm can assign it to either "the attack missed" or "the attack failed to get thru armor" or any number of "narrative descriptions" that result in "no net effect." From an effects-based reasoning, its "the attemot to harm you failed" that matters, the specifics of "how it failed"is just flavor, and flavor is not the purview of mechanics as much as it is the purview of GM choice.

 

Of course there are some attacks which should ignore armor (covered rules -wise by touch attacks) and situations where dodging isn't an option (covered by the various "lose dex bonus" rules) but for most common cases there is no downside to allowing the determination of "did this failed attack miss or was it stopped by armor" to be a "GM calls based on SFX, flavor, common sense and dramatic sense."

 

For example, its not uncommon in HERO to purchase armor or PD/ED as "super-dodge" or "luck" and so forth, whioch sounda a lot like allowing the muddling of the mechnics between "was it a hit that failed to penetrate or was it a miss" and thats apparently just fine, but doing so and calling it AC is not?

 

In short, why is it better to have the dice choose between "you were just missed" and "you were hit but no damage got thru" when an attack fails as opposed to leaving that flavor/sfx/fluff text choice to the Gm or player to select whichever is most appropriate? i can buy having the dice determine "was the attack successful" just fine, but why does the "how and why" of the failure need mechanics and dice?

 

If you are opposed to AC, are you also one to disallow HERO players to buy PD/ED and their ilk as combat luck or use dodge SFX to explain them?

Actually one of the HERO guys was also fine with AC as a mechanic. I won't say who...

[zornwil]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Bah, I LIKE Combat Luck! :

[Robyn]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

"Ok... I didn't take any body fromt he bullet due to combat luck' date=' which SFX says the bullet missed... but I still took stun from the bullet. How does that work?"[/quote']

 

Give your Combat Luck the "all-or-nothing" Limitation

[tesuji]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

you get twingy game play moments like "Ok... I didn't take any body fromt he bullet due to combat luck, which SFX says the bullet missed... but I still took stun from the bullet. How does that work?"

 

 

of course, it should be said that DND avoids this particular "ugh" fine since it

 

a- leaves hit for no damage and missed completely to the GM/player to determine

 

and

 

b- doesn't separate damage the same way HERo does in that a given attack will either do "stun damage" (non-lethal) or body damage (regular damage) but rarely if ever both.

 

so it doesn't actually have the problem occuring a lot at all.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

of course, it should be said that DND avoids this particular "ugh" fine since it

 

a- leaves hit for no damage and missed completely to the GM/player to determine

 

and

 

b- doesn't separate damage the same way HERo does in that a given attack will either do "stun damage" (non-lethal) or body damage (regular damage) but rarely if ever both.

 

so it doesn't actually have the problem occuring a lot at all.

 

 

But... maybe for the thread "Mechanics I have loved..." the separation of Stun & Body is quite high up the list.

 

Instead of the "ugh' moments, separate stun & body give me the "hallelujah" moments (taken for granted by some if you play Hero long enough) of much better feel and color to combat. Instead of just marking off arbitrary objective hit points... taking certain amount of stun and body allows for great moments that range from "Mighty blow! Would have felled the strongest mortal, but by my troth was but a sting!" to "I stand up spitting blood and chunks of broken tooth... can't handle too many shots like that..."

 

Now, you can say either of the above in a Hit Points system, but they are random appelations to a highly abstracted mechanics. They are randomly applied and are not served by the system, nor do they serve the game play in any way.

 

Hero, OTOH, allows for great variety of game play experience that not random, highly integrated and consistent.

 

AC and Hit Points are not only abstract, but they are insular mechanics. They stand alone and have a set effect on game play.

 

Hero mechanics integrate. Stun and Body and PD and ED and CON and resistant Def and concepts of Stunned, unconscious, dead, "ping" and "I felt that" all that can be put together in such variation that each creates a unique and colorful play experience, but still being internally consistent and compatible.

 

Example: A high CON, High Stun, but low defense character taking a hit "feels" very different from a High Defense, low stun character. An attack that hits and "pings" is a very different play experience than an attack that misses completely but blows up the wall next to the character.

 

The integration of all these mechanics provides and to some extent directs different play experiences in a consistent way... and I believe the game was designed to do just that.

 

Think about it this way... the significance of separating "being hit" from "resisting damage" is huge in defining the original supers genre feel. The hero who dances around Dr. Destroyer's mega-watt laser compared to the hero who takes it on the chin and says, "Thanks. I needed a tan!" is critical to establishing the desired game. While you can abstract two d20 supers with the same AC as "it misses you" and "it hits you and bounces" there is nothing inherent in the design of the mechanic that guides or supports that. It is random and abstract.

 

DCV vs. PD & ED (defenses) is a clear case of design intent... mechanics designed to provide unique, but compatible play experiences that help to differentiate characters and add richness to the game.

[tesuji]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

 

Instead of just marking off arbitrary objective hit points...

hit points are not arbitrary. they are determined by the defined nature and toughness of the creature just like HERo derives these from attributes assigned based on nature and toughness.

Now, you can say either of the above in a Hit Points system, but they are random appelations to a highly abstracted mechanics.

determined by player or Gm is not "random". In a one hit point track system with AC, such as DnD, this is determined by player or GM choices/decision.

 

In a two hit point track system or in a non-Ac system, like HERo, this can be determined by dice and mechanic.

They are randomly applied and are not served by the system, nor do they serve the game play in any way.

again, not random. As for how well they serve the game etc... thats a matter of taste of course.

Hero, OTOH, allows for great variety of game play experience that not random, highly integrated and consistent.

Again you seem to be using random in some way I am nor familar with. Both HERo and DND have hit points. HERo has two sets, DND one. Both roll random to hit and random damages. Many D20 games also split the hit points into two sets using wounds and vitality.

 

Actually to be precise, DND has two sets of hit points... non-lethal and lethal. The catch is DND uses non-lethal for very few attacks, giving most attacks the "can kill you" possibility. HERo tends to have a much larger "wont kill you" group.

AC and Hit Points are not only abstract, but they are insular mechanics. They stand alone and have a set effect on game play.

they derive from attributes and equipment and training and are affected by many elements in the system. I really fo not get how this is "more insular" than hero's stun and body?

Hero mechanics integrate. Stun and Body and PD and ED and CON and resistant Def and concepts of Stunned, unconscious, dead, "ping" and "I felt that" all that can be put together in such variation that each creates a unique and colorful play experience, but still being internally consistent and compatible.

all those elemtns exist within DND and can be put together blah blah.

Example: A high CON, High Stun, but low defense character taking a hit "feels" very different from a High Defense, low stun character. An attack that hits and "pings" is a very different play experience than an attack that misses completely but blows up the wall next to the character.

and the difference is that in DND, the determination of "which happens?" between "miss" or "hit and ping" is determined by player and GM, not by dice.

 

Why would it be better for grumsh, the mail clad slow moving warrior, who was attacked three times for no effect to have dice tell him "the enemy missed you totally" than to have the player say "your puny stick wont get thru my armor" when the Gm tells him "the spear attack failed"?

 

the latter is chosen by player or by GM based on what they feel the best result would be. Why is that approach somehow "less flavorful" than letting inanimate dice make the call?

 

Think about it this way... the significance of separating "being hit" from "resisting damage" is huge in defining the original supers genre feel. The hero who dances around Dr. Destroyer's mega-watt laser compared to the hero who takes it on the chin and says, "Thanks. I needed a tan!" is critical to establishing the desired game. While you can abstract two d20 supers with the same AC as "it misses you" and "it hits you and bounces" there is nothing inherent in the design of the mechanic that guides or supports that. It is random and abstract.

you and i have different understandings of the word random.

 

I agree COMPLETELY, it is vital to the super genre for the difference in hit-bounce and miss0clean to be reflected in the play. Losing that is bad and wont reflect the genre too well.

 

In an Ac system, when an attack fails, the determination of "what flavor was the failure" is left to Gm and Player to CHOOSE. So the spidey-man player can describe his as "ducked and dodged" and the brick can describe his as"that felt good, can i have another" all day long and each stay in character and so forth. The mechanic never gets in the way of them sticking to their flavor.

 

Thats a NON-RANDOM determination of flavor based on character and style.

 

In the mechnical model like HERO, the DICE tell you whether or not speedster was hit. Its entirely possible for spidey to take a rifle blast HIT and not take any damage on a sucky damage roll. Its also possible for brick boy to get clean missed, maybe even repeatedly.

 

these are determined by DICE ROLL, not by choice, in that type of system.

 

Thats random determination of flavor/style.

 

if you believe that this bit of flavor is important, I would think not leaving it to be randomly determined, eliminating the inconsistent results altogether, would be your preference.

 

DCV vs. PD & ED (defenses) is a clear case of design intent... mechanics designed to provide unique, but compatible play experiences that help to differentiate characters and add richness to the game.

 

Ac is a clear case of design intent... mechanics designed to allow players and Gm to choose the experiences they feel most compatable with the characters, the genre, and to differentiate between characters as they see fit, and not to pass the buck for these important decisions of flavor and style to randomness.

 

Really, we can all toss the purple prose over which is best blah blah all day, but there ought to be one thing we agree on...

 

One system lets the dice determine whether a failed attack was a clean miss or a hit-n-bounce while the other system does not decide this based on dice roll and leaves it to player/GM choice. If one wants to asing "this one's random" and "this one is not random" labels to the two, the one which makes it a non-mechanical choice is the one deserving the "not random" label, not the other way 'round.

[Robyn]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

determined by player or Gm is not "random". In a one hit point track system with AC' date=' such as DnD, this is determined by player or GM choices/decision.[/quote']

 

I think what he means is closer to "meaningless" and "superficial".

 

Why is that approach somehow "less flavorful" than letting inanimate dice make the call?

 

Inanimate dice would be pretty useless for that. Most people use dice in motion for that chance of different outcomes

 

Since a literal interpretation would undo what you were saying, this suggests to me that you meant it to be taken in some other way, but none of my guesses are bringing sense. Can you please rephrase or elaborate upon it?

 

Ac is a clear case of design intent... mechanics designed to allow players and Gm to choose the experiences they feel most compatable with the characters' date=' the genre, and to differentiate between characters as they see fit, and not to pass the buck for these important decisions of flavor and style to randomness.[/quote']

 

This would be a case of "Assumptions within D&D", unless the book explicitly stated that.

 

One system lets the dice determine whether a failed attack was a clean miss or a hit-n-bounce while the other system does not decide this based on dice roll and leaves it to player/GM choice. If one wants to asing "this one's random" and "this one is not random" labels to the two' date=' the one which makes it a non-mechanical choice is the one deserving the "not random" label, not the other way 'round.[/quote']

 

May as well take it to a level of abstraction where "who won or lost a combat" is decided by a single opposed roll of the dice, and the rest is decided by narrative. I've seen indy games that do this, by the way.

 

edit: Of course, on the other side of HERO, why not delve into such incredible detail within the game as to calculate wind shear for individual bullets? I've seen games that do this, too.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Bah' date=' I LIKE Combat Luck! :[/quote']

 

eloquent.

 

also, well said and I agree.

[tesuji]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

I think what he means is closer to "meaningless" and "superficial".

possible. its definitely not "random".

 

I wouldn't initially suspect it to mean meaningless or superficial since he places a rather high import on the flavor, as i do, and its value. IMo its important, and thus i have no problem leaving it to the thinking player/gm to choose what fits best, rather than asking random dice to decide for me.

Inanimate dice would be pretty useless for that. Most people use dice in motion for that chance of different outcomes

Your games must be different.

i only use inanimate dice. :-)

 

"Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms. See Synonyms at dead. "

 

Since a literal interpretation would undo what you were saying, this suggests to me that you meant it to be taken in some other way, but none of my guesses are bringing sense. Can you please rephrase or elaborate upon it?

I will try a one syllable word then...

 

**not DEAD** people making CHOICES vs **DEAD** dice rolling up random results.

 

is that clearer?

 

Honestly, i have almost never heard someone actually use "inanimate" to mean "not moving". I have always heard it used commonly, often in fact, for "dead."

 

This would be a case of "Assumptions within D&D", unless the book explicitly stated that.

Uhhh OK. So? i really dont know of any game that has as a rule that "things that we dont define or require mechanics for you can decide on yourself" and i don't think DnD is different in that regard. Its just kind of assumed.

May as well take it to a level of abstraction where "who won or lost a combat" is decided by a single opposed roll of the dice, and the rest is decided by narrative. I've seen indy games that do this, by the way.

"may as well..."

 

uhhh... no.

 

at least, not in my opinion.

 

here is the difference...

 

In a one roll combat, you lose tons of player choices and character actions that can influence the combat and its outcome as well as reactivity again allowing player choices and character actions to influence the outcome.

 

IMO removing lots of player choices and character actions and influence is not good as a general rule. The exception would be if keeping them added a lot of "not very fun" stuff and complication. Most people playing HERo or DND don't shy too far from tactical decision making. That doesn't fall into the "not fun" category.

 

So the "one roll combat" doesn't make the "may as well..." there for me. I am sure it does for some.

 

But the thing we are discussing here is NOT THAT at all.

 

There is no "player decision" or "character action" at stake between "you were hit" roll and "you take damage" in the vast majority of cases.(about the only exception i can think of is the roll with the punch which i only vaguley recollect ince i have never seen it used successfully and don't recall it being tried much.)

 

In the vast majority of the cases, the only difference in the two is that the AC model lets players and Gm choose while the HERO model make the detrmination randomly.

 

So again, i err on letting there be more choices for player/GM, less random results.

 

edit: Of course, on the other side of HERO, why not delve into such incredible detail within the game as to calculate wind shear for individual bullets? I've seen games that do this, too.

thats where the detail level moves well into the "not fun" level for me.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

I know I'm coming into this late, but...

 

For me, I evaluate mechanics on three criteria:

 

1. Utility (does it accomplish its intended goal successfully?)

2. Reasonableness (while it need not be "realistic," it should at least not slap you in the face with its overpowering illogic).

3. Elegance (is it consistent with other mechanics in the game system (especially other mechanics that do similar things), is its complexity not out of whack with its importance, etc.)

[RDU Neil]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

One system lets the dice determine whether a failed attack was a clean miss or a hit-n-bounce while the other system does not decide this based on dice roll and leaves it to player/GM choice.

 

Exactly.

 

Hero resolution system mechanically guides the outcome so that the SFX/narrative result of the attack is not chosen randomly... perhaps I should use the term "arbitrarily" or "whim" as a better term. That might clear up my meaning. The SFX/narrative description of the attack is consistently interpreted because the mechanic used to to not be damaged drives a unique narrative. I danced around the laser is a guided narrative of Dodge or other use of increased/high DCV. The attack pings off my chest is a guided narrative of high defenses. The attack burns and rips my flesh but I don't stop is a guided narrative of low defense, low DCV but high CON and Stun and Body (hopefully some Regen later ).

 

Hero does NOT leave the SFX/narrative of combat up to random/arbitrary decisions by the players. (This why I dislike using things like increased DCV to represent "Blocking" because to me, the SFX/narrative of DCV is "being missed" not redirecting the attack and the dramatic narrative can be drastically shaped by nuanced difference between missed or redirected... they are not the same in the final Story.)

 

D&D says "You can choose whatever SFX you feel like, 'cause all the system cares about is "attack failed agains AC of X" Such a generic mechanic results in a generic narrative. Fine if you like that sort of thing, but the openness to choose "whatever" as the SFX/narrative has the reverse effect of encouraging real flavor and drama to that narrative. If the system "doesn't care" why the attack vs. AC X failed... then why should the players. There is no reinforcement of a dramatic combat narrative.

 

Hero does reinforce a certain kind of dramatic combat narrative because it DOES "care" whether the attack "missed" mechanically or "hit and was bounced" mechanically. It cares because it will then ask, "What did the attack hit?" if there was a miss... or it asks, "Did you bounce both Body and Stun? Do you take knockback?" if it was actually a hit.

 

These mechanics back up a intention that SFX (built in or not) are important... D&D's lack of consideration for these things... what you see as openness to choose... is really saying "it doesn't matter." Every D&D game I've ever played, this has come across. I ask, "So what happened, did his sword swing past me? Did it bounce off my armor?" GM replie, "Doesn't matter... you don't take damage... next!" Then I reply, "Ok, assuming his sword missed, I step in close to jam his sword arm as I cut low to the kidneys!" GM reply, "uh... ok, nice color... but it doesn't matter, just roll to hit and add your attack modifiers... do you roll 22 or more?"

 

Ugh.

 

Same scenario in Hero... my reply would be, "Ok, cool... are you just describing a bump before the attack or would your really want to hip jam his arm as kind of a grab/weapon bind to try and set yourself up for an unguarded shot next action?"

 

Hero's variable mechanics allow and support this kind of dramatic combat narrative. To the point of the thread, I object to any mechanic that leaves the combat SFX/narrative up to arbitrary choice rather that provide a framework for consistent in game interpretation.

[Robyn]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Your games must be different.

i only use inanimate dice. :-)

 

Well, not innately animate, but nonetheless quite animated when they are dancing across the table

 

**not DEAD** people making CHOICES vs **DEAD** dice rolling up random results.

 

is that clearer?

 

No, actually. Do you mean the "dead or not dead" to be the particular quality which distinguishes "people" from "dice"? Or is "death" somehow important in itself?

 

It's the same point of confusion as struck me originally, I think; when you tack on "inanimate", and especially when you **EMPHASIZE** the extra word, it's unclear whether you are attempting to make a new point or to provide additional support for your existing point.

 

Uhhh OK. So? i really dont know of any game that has as a rule that "things that we dont define or require mechanics for you can decide on yourself" and i don't think DnD is different in that regard. Its just kind of assumed.

 

Exactly. Assumed by you - it's not part of the game. GM's and players can just as easily not make that assumption. Which makes it not so much a "clear case" of design intent.

 

In the vast majority of the cases' date=' the only difference in the two is that the AC model lets players and Gm choose while the HERO model make the detrmination randomly.[/quote']

 

I don't think anyone in this discussion is using the word "randomly" properly.

 

For each of those two ("getting hit" and "taking damage"), there are several different player-decided factors interacting with several different GM-decided factors, each of these factors being represented by a specific number. Those numbers are then multiplied by dice or used to determine something else using (usually) a mere 3 dice, but the inclusion of dice does not wipe from record all non-random factors.

[Robyn]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

perhaps I should use the term "arbitrarily" or "whim" as a better term. That might clear up my meaning.

 

Makes sense. Sounds good to me

 

D&D says "You can choose whatever SFX you feel like' date=' 'cause all the system cares about is "attack failed agains AC of X" Such a generic mechanic results in a generic narrative. Fine if you like that sort of thing, but the openness to choose "whatever" as the SFX/narrative has the reverse effect of encouraging real flavor and drama to that narrative. If the system "doesn't care" why the attack vs. AC X failed... then why should the players. There is no reinforcement of a dramatic combat narrative.[/quote']

 

In the sense of forcing the players to utilize specific details in their descriptions, no, there isn't. In the sense of positive reinforcement, though, to reward players for doing so, there is, and a lot of rules-light games (of the "focus on roleplaying" sort) are very successful despite employing exactly the openness you criticize above.

 

IMO, the nailing-down of details is best suited for those players who lack creativity . . . it may be necessary for supplementing their imagination. Some players would find their narrative talents harmfully restricted if constantly blocked from freely generating descriptions.

 

These mechanics back up a intention that SFX (built in or not) are important... D&D's lack of consideration for these things... what you see as openness to choose... is really saying "it doesn't matter." Every D&D game I've ever played' date=' this has come across.[/quote']

 

Sounds more like a case of bad GM, than bad game. If they want to spend more time rolling dice than narrating what happened, then they should just abstract the entire combat to a single die roll and get it over with (IMO).

 

To the point of the thread' date=' I object to any mechanic that leaves the combat SFX/narrative up to arbitrary choice rather that provide a framework for consistent in game interpretation.[/quote']

 

If the choices are truly arbitrary (lacking consistency), this can be handled through the social framework between GM and player. Most of us manage to make decisions through "common sense" and "dramatic sense", though

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

While I've allowed Combat Luck... it doesn't mean I'm happy with it. I dislike the poor way it models things. In fact' date=' I think it is a mechanic that demonstrates why a system shouldn't try to be "all things" and to model every possible effect. The more you twist the basic functionality in the dream world of SFX-less vanilla mechanics, you get twingy game play moments like "Ok... I didn't take any body fromt he bullet due to combat luck, which SFX says the bullet missed... but I still took stun from the bullet. How does that work?"[/quote']

 

See examples above - it creased your skull. It "missed" sufficiently to do only superficial damage, but still connected. For those characters who define this as active avoidance, another option is that you twist a muscle or joint in evading the killing attack.

 

That kind of "ugh" moment in game play defines when I object to a mechanic. Now... no system will be perfect and there will always be these moments... but there is a difference between Combat Luck' date=' which is a small rule, not used that often and a core mechanic that practically defines the game like AC in D&D. I can ignore Combat Luck in Hero and play the game just fine. Remove AC from D&D and the whole game collapses.[/quote']

 

Combat luck is a symptom. To me, the real issue is that, in Hero, killing attacks are sufficiently common and sufficiently deadly that characters MUST have resistant defenses in some form or another, or they cannot compete in the game. Combat Luck is a means of permitting resistant defenses to the classic "dives into a hail of gunfire and never gets scratched" characters in the comics, the Star Wars heros who wear no armor but rarely, if ever, take a serious hit and similar characters in the source material.

 

In D20, such characters might have a high AC (reflecting the fact they rarely, if ever, get hit) and also high hit points (reflecting the fact that, when they are hit, it's rarely serious, or even noticable. The analogous Hero mechanical approach, I suppose, would be to have no resistant defenses, but a high DCV, and lots of extra STUN and BOD (probably CON as well), with fast recovery and healing for all but the last, say, 10 BOD and 30 Stun. The character:

 

- won't get hit very often

- won't take noticable damage in most cases when he is hit

- recovers those "just missed me" BOD and STUN points rapidly

 

and can now wade through a hail of gunfire/laser bolts/whatever as the need arises.

 

I find combat luck considerably more elegant (less kludgy?), however, since the above appproach just tries to graft the "hit points" mechanics on to Hero.

 

Bah' date=' I LIKE Combat Luck! :[/quote']

 

I think it's a relatively simple solution to the problem. I certainly don't see a better fix.

 

DC Heroes approached the issue from another angle. They allowed all attacks to do Killing or Normal damage - characters had to state they were using Killing damage, and it was noticable (metagame noticable, practically). A comment from the designers noted that, while it seems odd to have guns do non-lethal damage, watching the Batman reduced to the Batstain by a couple of thugs with some lucky die rolls convinced the designers that this was a necessity to properly emulate the source materials.

 

of course, it should be said that DND avoids this particular "ugh" fine since it

 

a- leaves hit for no damage and missed completely to the GM/player to determine

 

and

 

b- doesn't separate damage the same way HERo does in that a given attack will either do "stun damage" (non-lethal) or body damage (regular damage) but rarely if ever both.

 

so it doesn't actually have the problem occuring a lot at all.

 

I'm not sure why everyone reacts so negatively to this statement. The fact is that the issue people are complaining about in regards to combat luck is a function of Hero's mechanics, and does not exist under D20 mechanics. There are other pros and cons to both systems, but THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE does not arise under the d20 system

[tesuji]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

 

No, actually.

Ok then i will cease trying to clear it up for you.

failed our communication checks on this one.

moving on.

Exactly. Assumed by you - it's not part of the game. GM's and players can just as easily not make that assumption. Which makes it not so much a "clear case" of design intent.

uhhh..OK. Gioven neither statement of "design intent" involves an actual quote from the game(s), perhaps both quotes should be equally chided for being assumptions, for those who feel thats important?

 

I don't think anyone in this discussion is using the word "randomly" properly.

I used random as in "determined by a roll of chance" as opposed to "determined by a choice".

For each of those two ("getting hit" and "taking damage"), there are several different player-decided factors interacting with several different GM-decided factors, each of these factors being represented by a specific number. Those numbers are then multiplied by dice or used to determine something else using (usually) a mere 3 dice, but the inclusion of dice does not wipe from record all non-random factors.

 

Saying something is random does not imply in any way that it is not influenced or weighted by other choices. A to hit roll of 17- on 3d6 is a random determined outcome just like a coin flip is, one is just weighted differently.

 

If the decision between "hit-with-bounce" and "missed completely" is determined by the to-hit roll (IE their is a chance of both happening, even an uneven chance) then that is a random resolution, a random determination. If the choice between the two is made by CHOICE of one of the participants, then it is not a random determination. (Now one could argue that if they decided to take the result of the coin flip thenit would be random, but thats a different level of semantics.)

 

Tragtdless, it seems like he has retracted the claim of randomness anyway, so it is moot.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Combat luck is a symptom. To me, the real issue is that, in Hero, killing attacks are sufficiently common and sufficiently deadly that characters MUST have resistant defenses in some form or another, or they cannot compete in the game. Combat Luck is a means of permitting resistant defenses to the classic "dives into a hail of gunfire and never gets scratched" characters in the comics, the Star Wars heros who wear no armor but rarely, if ever, take a serious hit and similar characters in the source material.

 

On this I totally agree... but I don't see it as a problem.

 

To me, the fact that Hero supports KAs as "very effective, so use them" is a good thing. It makes sense to me and is only seen as a problem because such an attempt to "rationalize the fantastic" simply proves how stupid it is to have a career based on violence while wearing nothing but spandex. Ok, if you have bullet proof skin... doesn't make much sense if you are Scott Summers.

 

Now... you can say that this is a flaw, but only if you think using all the rules of a "universal system" is how you want to simulate 4-color comics. If you want to do that, just take out KAs completely and have all damage be "normal damage" (maybe only when targeting a character) An unrealistic solution for a very unrealistic genre convention from comics.

 

Four color comics are inconsistent and whimsical... so IMO Hero really isn't the best system for that. Combat Luck... a kludge to try and HELP to simulate something (Daredevil type stuff) that the core says isn't supported... is a symptom... of what you can, but maybe shouldn't, do with Hero.

 

YMMV

[Robyn]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Gioven neither statement of "design intent" involves an actual quote from the game(s)' date=' perhaps both quotes should be equally chided for being assumptions,[/quote']

 

RDU Neil introduced his points as "I believe . . . ", and cited genre conventions leading to his conclusion. Whether the effect could truly be "design intent" is a question for that "Assumptions in HERO" thread.

 

You opposed them with a simple statement as if yours was fact. The qualifier is helpful when engaged in debate.

 

I used random as in "determined by a roll of chance" as opposed to "determined by a choice".

 

A choice was made to use the roll of chance, retaining some control over the process. I do not see how the two would necessarily be mutually exclusive.

 

If the choice between the two is made by CHOICE of one of the participants' date=' then it is not a random determination.[/quote']

 

It may, however, be an arbitrary one.

 

Who decides what happens? What if one of them wants to be hit, and the other does not want to be hit? If they can't reconcile their differences, aren't dice (as an objective 3rd party) required to settle the matter?

 

it seems like he has retracted the claim of randomness anyway' date=' so it is moot.[/quote']

 

Are you saying that you only said those things to get RDU Neil to retract his claims, not because you would support them at any other time? Or that you only intended to be engaged in debate with him, and will not discuss the validity of your points with anyone else?

 

Or something else? Please clarify - why does his retraction render the point moot?

[OddHat]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

Often, I hear people object to particular mechanics. A lot of HEROites object to damage saves. Some people object to STUN lotto.

 

Normally the off-the-cuff rationale is "I don't like it" followed by either "it isn't real" or "it doesn't feel right."

 

Now, not to dismiss these (feelings have legitimate bases), but the real measuring stick for all mechanics should be "what is this system trying to accomplish?" and "how does my RP style fit into that?" (Or something like that)

 

But often we just don't like certain mechanics.

 

I don't like that HERO only uses d6s, but it makes a lot of sense and I wouldn't really bother to change it.

 

OTOH, I can easily see why people change the STUN lotto, given its impact, and people have spoken to that.

 

But people will say "I don't like Armor Class" whereas a HERO person might (and I have heard a, ahem, well-placed HERO person with absolutely a 100% life investment in HERO, let's say that) say "Armor Class is just a mechanic, you can wear what you want and still say what AC you have."

 

And this is a good example of where we might not like the surface mechanic, but that doesn't mean it isn't fully functional and if we just realize the useage it isn't really an issue.

 

I see Damage Save this way. I don't care for it, but in the end, all it is is another defense mechanism. It certainly has its good points.

 

But "feel" is a legitimate issue, and the feel of a mechanic can turn a player off to the best system.

 

I don't really have a point...just fishing for thoughts, I guess...

 

I sometimes object to mechanics because what the system is trying to accomplish doesn't fit with my role playing style.

 

I sometimes object to mechanics because they run counter to what the system is trying to accomplish.

 

One example of the second situation:

In the old Nightlife game by Stellar Games (imagine WoD but actually fun), the mechanic for using supernatural powers involved a loss of Humanity (Sanity) points. Fair enough. Being involved in criminal activities, killing, and many other actions also resulted in a loss of Humanity points. Again, fair enough. Humanity points could be regained by living like a normal human, doing a job, fighting your monstrous urges, etc. All fine.

 

Except, looking at the Humanity costs and the sample fiction, the numbers didn't add up. A moderately adventurous character who used his Supernatural powers ("Edges") only a few times per week would slowly slip into madness unless he was working a full time job and desperately striving to be "Human" between adventures. Many of the characters in the Sample fiction and almost all enemies should have become deranged, out of control beasts in under a month of their normal activity, with no chance of pulling out of the spiral.

 

I objected to this broken mechanic, and changed it in my games.

 

I'd do the same thing with any mechanic I disliked.

[tesuji]

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

 

 

Hero resolution system mechanically guides the outcome so that the SFX/narrative result of the attack is not chosen randomly... perhaps I should use the term "arbitrarily" or "whim" as a better term.

Better than random, as in it means what you want, yes.

Better in terms of being a good word to choose, IMO not really.

Why not use EVIL or STUPID instead?

Why not simply use CHOICE?

Choice delivers the meaning, someone chooses the outcome, without adding in the negative connotations you seem to want to toss in with arbitrary or whim.

 

Why do you naturally gravitate to "the player decides" or "the Gm decides" being whim, as opposed to being "reasoned or thoughtful or considered?

 

I prefer to think that, when given the choice, people will choose "what they want". I also know that when people roll dice the dice will come up random. That means with dice you will sometimes get what you want and sometimes not, if there was ANY reason to roll at all.

 

With something like "what was the flavor of the failed attack: miss or bounce" which has little to no real impact on anything other than flavor and style, I prefer to let the player/Gm choose "what they want" instead of letting them roll to see if they get what they want.

 

thats the difference.

 

That might clear up my meaning. The SFX/narrative description of the attack is consistently interpreted because the mechanic used to to not be damaged drives a unique narrative. I danced around the laser is a guided narrative of Dodge or other use of increased/high DCV. The attack pings off my chest is a guided narrative of high defenses. The attack burns and rips my flesh but I don't stop is a guided narrative of low defense, low DCV but high CON and Stun and Body (hopefully some Regen later ).

But the rolls dont ALWAYS give you those results. A low defense guy can "bounce" a low damage attack and the low dodge high defense guy can be cleanly missed. The random decision might be weighted to favor the "better" outcomes, but since you are rolling it may not turn out the way you want.

 

If you choose, again no reason to toss in aspersions such as whim or arbitrary, if you CHOOSE, you will choose what you want and get it every time cuz their is no roll to prove "i got what i wanted."

 

Hero does NOT leave the SFX/narrative of combat up to random/arbitrary decisions by the players.

Ok you wont get off it so lets call a spade a spade.

 

What determines the odds in HERo of "bounce" vs "miss"?

think fast.

clock is ticking.

the character's stats and the target's stats and the situation.

 

with me so far. not too whimsical or arbitrary for ya!?

 

What determined the character's stats? Player and Gm choice, right?

still with me or have you fallen off the baritrarily high cliff?

 

What determines the targets stats and the circumstances? The Gm choices?

 

OK, so now, for the rocket scientists in the room...

 

other than "personal bias and i like to impune the players of that other game whenever possible"... why in god's name would someone automatically presume that WHEN ALLOWED TO CHOOSE the outcome the player and Gms will use arbitrary/whim as their decision making but then at the same time not assume that when makiing the choices that will feed the odds for the random determination those same people would make reasoned decisions determined to produce reasonable results?

 

Dude, lookmg for the sake of common sense and civility...

 

I am willing to assume that when you (and other hero players) sit down and design your hero character intending him to be "dodgey guy" or "bricky guy" you did not choose your character's traits whimsically or abritrarily but your CHOICES were reasonable and with intent to produce the result you wanted.

 

So will you give me (and other non-HERO players) the same consideration when it comes to making decisions about how i want the failed atack to be represented and credit me with making a reasonable choice and drop the whim and arbitrary?

 

if not then come on out and say "i dont like leaving it to choice because people who play those are too stupid to play right?" or some other direct perjorative so we can all see the bias most clearly.

 

geesh.

 

D&D says "You can choose whatever SFX you feel like, 'cause all the system cares about is "attack failed agains AC of X" Such a generic mechanic results in a generic narrative. Fine if you like that sort of thing, but the openness to choose "whatever" as the SFX/narrative has the reverse effect of encouraging real flavor and drama to that narrative. If the system "doesn't care" why the attack vs. AC X failed... then why should the players. There is no reinforcement of a dramatic combat narrative.

Saying "sometimes you can get the result you prefer but sometimes you cannot" (leaving it to random) does NOT give you more opportunity to direct the narrative than simply allowing you to CHOOSE does.

 

If i say to you "dude, you got 100 chances, choose whether you want me to give you a 1 dollar bill or a 10 dollar bill each time" i can practically guarantee you you will end up with more money than if i say "dude roll a d20, on a 1 i give you 1 dollar and on a 2+ i give you a 10 dollar bill... roll 100 times"

 

That is, unless i somehow have a bised view and want to imply you are an idiot who might choose the 1 over the 20.

 

As for the generic, sorry, but I tend to get more dramatuic elements and desriptions both of character and events when those are simply "for fun flabor nthings" than when they are mechanical things. Players do things more freely "for fun" when they know it wont matter mechanically. Mechanical decisons are often driven by mechnical considerations.

 

Normally i talk about character disads and the like here but instead let me discuss KNOCKBACK.

 

In supercomics, knockback is a flavor bit. It is rarely a TACTICAL consideration. Its done to emphasize and give visual to "man that was a strong hit" and so forth.

 

in HERO, it is a mechanical consideration. It is IMPORTANT enough that most HERo combats in supers game see frequent positioning so that knockback can "knocn him into a wall for damage" or "knock him into a buddy for damage both" or even "kcnk him to hald DCv so my buddies with held action can gang up and make rapid fire attacks against the low dcv target" anbd so on and so on. practically every attack in a KB game saw experienced players positioning, lining up and considering knockback.

 

It ceased being "flavor, fun and just simple dramatic flair" the moment it was moved from the flavor realm into the mechanical realm.

 

that, IMO, moved it fyrther away from comics and genre, IMO.

 

Same things with bounce vs miss. Why have sometimes the brick gets missed when "clearly" that makes little sense, instead of letting the failed attack be chosen by7 the player to be a "bounce your puny bullets off my chest"?

 

Again, if the answer is "the player may be arbitrayr, whimsical or just plain ignorant", then why assume the player wasn't any of those things when he picked the defenses for his "brick"?

 

 

These mechanics back up a intention that SFX (built in or not) are important... D&D's lack of consideration for these things... what you see as openness to choose... is really saying "it doesn't matter." Every D&D game I've ever played, this has come across. I ask, "So what happened, did his sword swing past me? Did it bounce off my armor?" GM replie, "Doesn't matter... you don't take damage... next!"

if the Gm says it doesn't matter then why aren't you saying "Ok so it missed?" if thats what you wanted? This doesn';t sound like BAD SYSTEM, it sounds like BAD PLAY.

 

If a player asks the hero GM "how much defense should my brick take to bounce bullets" and the Gm says "doesn't matter", what should the player then do? Choose for himself or not choose any?

 

If you are going to assume bad choices for one side of this argument only, you aren't going to make much headway in communicating much more than your bias.

 

 

Then I reply, "Ok, assuming his sword missed, I step in close to jam his sword arm as I cut low to the kidneys!" GM reply, "uh... ok, nice color... but it doesn't matter, just roll to hit and add your attack modifiers... do you roll 22 or more?"

well from my experiencwe with HERO, the "sword missed" would not give you a better bonus to hit on the next attack by you as opposed to a SWORD BOUNCED would... so that Gm could be responding in either system.

 

Similarly, in HERO, barring a specific character maneuver you purchased, the description of "step in aim low" has nothing to do with the missed vs bounced thing. matter of fact, if the Gm isn''t using the optional hit locations, it means nothing at all MECHANICALLY... in either system. (if your point was to say "HERO has a hit location optional rule and DND doesn't" thats another discussion, smoke screen, not related to the choice or not of hit and miss.)

 

for neither system does the "bounce or hit have any meaning to the example you just gave, MECHANICALLY!! All that hit and miss did was color your description. It provided you no bonus at all, even in hero.

 

So why make it something you have to roll for in order to get what you wanted?

 

Do you make your players roll for their fcharacter's eye color? green on a 6 blue on a 4? No? It wont matter in game mechanically so the player can just choose? right?

 

So, given that the above "failed attack" as a bounce or a miss in BOTH systems would do no different, why not let them choose that too?

 

aren't you worried a player might choose "red plain for the right eye and blue starburst with red-sparkeles for the right eye if you let them choose the eye color for their full bklooded italian mafia don? You know how whimsical and arbitrary these players can be if allowed to make choices?

 

Ugh.

 

Same scenario in Hero... my reply would be, "Ok, cool... are you just describing a bump before the attack or would your really want to hip jam his arm as kind of a grab/weapon bind to try and set yourself up for an unguarded shot next action?"

if you were in a game which allowed those martial maneuvers and (I dont have the new fantasy hero so i dont know what an unguarded attack would be) i have no idea what the rules for unguarded are in the new FH rules. I know normally, weapons don't provide you with defenses.

 

BUT, to emphasize what you are doing... maybe my knowledge of HERO rules is insufficnet, had the weapon struck and bounced, are you saying the HERO rules would disallow the weapon bind and unguarded choices?

 

See, not that i know of?

 

so what you are doing is trying to disguise the issue.

 

Does HERo have some optional rules that dont appear in core book DND? Does DND have plenty of add on books with better martial arts detail too? Sure.

 

This is complaining about how DND doesn't have enough combat maneuvers... which is a fine complaint, but not what this is about.

 

in HERo rules, would a bounce for no effect sword strike have disallowed you doing the grab-bind-unguarded thingy?

 

if not, ten the description holds fine for either game..

Hero's variable mechanics allow and support this kind of dramatic combat narrative. To the point of the thread, I object to any mechanic that leaves the combat SFX/narrative up to arbitrary choice rather that provide a framework for consistent in game interpretation.

 

arbitrary again... sheesh.

 

please go back thru your post and replace every arbitrary and every whim with "reasoned" and "considered" and see if perhaps your negative bias against those who don't play your game isn't changing drastically the reasonableness of your position.

 

if HERo players choose their stats arbitrarily without consideration of character concept, design and style, does the vaunted HERO system then fix it for them? If my brick was arbitrarily given 2 pd and 2 ed and no armor, or other defenses would the hero system make him be tough like tractor?

 

Why not just go ahead and say "if allowed to choose their results instead of having them chosen for them, HERo players would screw it up" if thats really ehat you think allowing choice would do?

 

I am perfeclty willing to assume those playing HERo aren't incompetent dweebs making arbitrary and whimsical decisions. its a shame that doesn't go both ways.

 

"i dont like how dnd does it cuz dnd players are idiots" just isn't worth more discussion.